In article <email@example.com>, "Rupert" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Lester Zick wrote: > > On 18 Jul 2006 16:53:30 -0700, "Rupert" <email@example.com> > > wrote: > > > Well perhaps talking about reasons people should believe in > > mathematical axioms instead of demonstrating their truth isn't > > evidence of a lack of good faith in your book but it is in mine. > > > > If you could demonstrate them, as opposed to merely give good reasons > for believing in them, then they wouldn't be called axioms. You have to > start somewhere.
Thus Zick denies his own thesis of only needing to accept absolute truths.